Mamita Das Vs State of Odisha

“Under the aforesaid fact and circumstances, it is therefore prayed that your lordship may be graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the impugned order dtd. 31.12.2025 passed by the opp. party No.2 in SuoMotu Mutation Case No.14770 of 2025 under ANNEXURE-4 and the corrected Bhulekh ROR issued by the opp. party No.2 under ANNEXURE-5 shall not be quashed.

¶17

And in the event the opp. parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, to make the said Rule absolute

¶18

And to grant any other relief as deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

¶19

And for the said act, of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall every pray.”

¶20

By a suo motu mutation case registered by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, the land in question recorded in the name

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

of the petitioner under Stitiban status, was converted to Pattadar s tatus purportedly on the basis of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department Circular dated 02.07.2025. 4. Mr. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initiation of proceeding as well as the order passed therein is entirely contrary to the law long settled that operation of a Government circular/notification shall always be prospective. Mr. Pattanaik refers to a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Rath V. State of Odisha & Others (W.P.(C) No.31150 of 2025), wherein the Coordinate Bench, after taking note of several Supreme Court judgments on the point, held as follows:-

¶23

“So, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the operation of all the notification and resolutions of the Government are prospective in nature, but the same will have no retrospective effect. 6. It is the judicial coronary that, when the initial order is held to be illegal, then the documents/orders prepared on the basis of the said initial orders shall be deemed to be non-est in the eye of law.

¶24

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

¶25

(i)In a case between Badrinath Vrs. Government of Tamilnadu & Others (2000) 8 SCC 395 that,

¶26

Once the basis of a proceeding is gone, may be at a later point of time by order of superior authority, any intermediate action taken in the meantime would fall to the ground. This principle of consequential orders which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders.

¶27

(ii)In a case between State of Kerala Vrs. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam and Another reported in (2001) 10 SCC 191 that,

¶28

Once the main impugned order is set aside any other consequential order made pursuant to the same would automatically become ineffective. (Para 9)

¶29

(iii)In a case between Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by LRs Vrs. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by LRs reported in 2005 (3) SCC 422 that,

¶30

Page 2 of 3

¶31

If remand order was bad under law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto would be non-est and have to be necessarily set aside.

¶32

(iv)In a case between State of Punjab Vrs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Others etc., reported in 2012 (51) OCR (SC) 220 that,

¶33

If initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reasons that illegality strikes at the root of the order.”

¶34

Learned State counsel fairly submits that the petitioner’s case is covered by the ratio decided in the cited case.

¶35

Since the law has been settled, the writ application is disposed of directing the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to consider the matter strictly in light of the judgment of this Court referred above and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from today. Till such time, the order dated 31.12.2025 shall not be acted upon.

¶36

( Sashikanta Mishra)

¶37

Judge

¶38

B.C. Tudu

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 02-May-2026 17:09:54

¶41

Page 3 of 3

Mamita Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamita Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himashu Kumar Chemi Vs State of Odisha

Renubala Chemi Vs State of Odisha

Daburu Venkat Rao Vs State of Odisha

Banamali Banchhur Vs State of Orissa

Prakash Chemi Vs State of Odisha

Ramakanta Sipka Vs the Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Balangir